mediawiki-mcp-server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the output format ('HTML-formatted diff showing additions (green) and deletions (red)'), which is not captured in annotations. No contradictions with annotations exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, parameters, returns), each sentence is necessary, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by 'RETURNS' statement), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and output without needing to explain return values in detail.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description lists parameters and adds minor semantics (e.g., 'uses latest revision' for title parameters), but this largely repeats schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Compare two revisions and show the diff.' It specifies the verb ('compare'), resource ('revisions'), and output ('diff'), and distinguishes from siblings like mediawiki_get_revisions (for listing) and mediawiki_compare_topic (for cross-page comparisons).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage guidelines with 'USE WHEN' examples (e.g., 'what changed between versions') and 'NOT FOR' exclusions with named alternatives (e.g., 'use mediawiki_get_revisions' for listing). This clearly guides when to use this tool versus siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.